Not sure how its the fault of the Tea Party. S&P stated that they would lower the rating if they did not see a plan with deficit reductions of $4 trillion over 10 years. The plan that was passed by ALL involved only reduced $2.4 trillion. Obama was never serious about deficit reduction. The only reason any even occured was because of House Republicans.

Not sure how its the fault of the Tea Party. S&P stated that they would lower the rating if they did not see a plan with deficit reductions of $4 trillion over 10 years. The plan that was passed by ALL involved only reduced $2.4 trillion. Obama was never serious about deficit reduction. The only reason any even occured was because of House Republicans.

S&P pointed out their displeasure at the debt ceiling debate and the threat of default (Tea Party)and the government's inability to raise revenue (Tea Party)

Not sure how its the fault of the Tea Party. S&P stated that they would lower the rating if they did not see a plan with deficit reductions of $4 trillion over 10 years. The plan that was passed by ALL involved only reduced $2.4 trillion. Obama was never serious about deficit reduction. The only reason any even occured was because of House Republicans.

Rich, the debt ceiling is such a dumb concept that it should not even exist. But Tea-Quida held it (and the country) hostage in order to force their point. S&P wouldn't have even reviewed for a downgrade if they didn't for the issue with their zealotous dogma.

And if you remember properly, Obama was pushing for his "grand plan" of $4T in cuts. He was willing to compromise. He and Reid had a deal worked out, that Tea-Quida wouldn't accept (e.g., Reid couldn't keep his people in order).

In the end, Obama did more than compromise, he rolled over just to get something done.

While the changes are necessary, the way Tea-Quida went about them did more damage than good to this country.

S&P wouldn't have even reviewed for a downgrade if they didn't for the issue with their zealotous dogma.

S&P stated that the downgraded our credit rating because a proposal wasn't put in place to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years.

Their concern wasn't the debt ceiling, it is the debt.

Quote:

It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.

And if you remember properly, Obama was pushing for his "grand plan" of $4T in cuts. He was willing to compromise. He and Reid had a deal worked out, that Tea-Quida wouldn't accept (e.g., Reid couldn't keep his people in order).

Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling raise. He didn't want to address the debt. If not for Republican control of the House, the debt ceiling would have been raised with no reductions. He had no plan. He basically lukewarmly supported the Gang of Six proposal (probably the most comprehensive on the table), but neither liberal democrats nor conservative republicans wanted to support it.

And from what was reported, it was Boehner and Reid who had a deal worked out for a $4 trillion reduction over 10 years and an $800 billion increase in review that involved reforming the tax code by lowering tax rates, eliminating loopholes and deductions, and Obama told Reid that was a no go.

Quote:

In the end, Obama did more than compromise, he rolled over just to get something done.

Yes, he did, because he realized he had no choice. He demonstrated the spine of a jellyfish during this process. So not only are his ideas bad for the economy, and not only is he incapable of sticking to his guns, but he's actually a pushover when push comes to shove.

Not a very inspiring performance by Mr. Obama.

Quote:

the way Tea-Quida went about them did more damage than good to this country.

How so? If you don't stick to your principals and represent your constituency, you're just another Washingont politician.

* The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

That jives with the idea that only a 2 trillion cut was not enough.

Quote:

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.* Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

They obviously didn't like the way both sides behaved.

Quote:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. . .The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

The only controversy came from the Tea Party. The threat of default came from them.

Quote:

It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

The S&P says here that they want deeper cuts in entitlements and increased revenue. As for the exact ratio. they don't care. Just do both:

Quote:

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

Quote:

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

I wonder which party will be willing to let them expire??? And which one will foam at the mouth over it??

Quote:

Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating.

Quote:

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.

[/quote]

Government is going to have to work together. But, you see, working together means compromising. Tea Party has no interest in compromising.

I would bet every limb on my body that at cut/cap/balance amendment would have maintained our AAA rating. Forcing a balanced budget through constitutional law would have made everyone happy. The Democrats were the ones who didn't want to be made to balance the budget.

The only controversy came from the Tea Party. The threat of default came from them.

That is simply not an accurate statement.

Obama threatened to veto any bill that did not raise the debt ceiling out enough to hold us down until after re-election. Initially, he threatened to veto any bill that did not include a tax increase on the rich.

Harry Reid and Obama both threatened to kill Cut, Cap and Balance.

So how would these actions not have led to default? The threat was there on all sides.

In the end, all sides wound up supporting what was passed.

Quote:

The S&P says here that they want deeper cuts in entitlements and increased revenue.

Increased revenue is not exclusive to raising taxes.

Quote:

I wonder which party will be willing to let them expire??? And which one will foam at the mouth over it??

Letting the tax cuts expire may not lead to longterm revenue increase and in fact may do the opposite.

The biggest single factor in leading to longterm revenue increase would be creating enough jobs to get us back to the desired 5% unemployment rate. The Democrat Party hasn't exactly been too successful with their stimulus and big government approach in getting us there.

Tax cuts in the early 2000s seemed to do a better job.

Quote:

Government is going to have to work together. But, you see, working together means compromising. Tea Party has no interest in compromising.

I agree that the Tea Party is too rigid in their ideology and early in this debate I was supporting Obama's support of the Gang of Six proposal.

However, as president, he never put forth a plan of his own, and once there was an agreement between Boehner and Reid to do something along the lines of the Gang of Six, which includes reforming the tax code to lower tax rates but increases revenue via shutting off loopholes and eliminating deductions, Obama shut that down.

I would bet every limb on my body that at cut/cap/balance amendment would have maintained our AAA rating. Forcing a balanced budget through constitutional law would have made everyone happy. The Democrats were the ones who didn't want to be made to balance the budget.

Yep. Italy is looking at a balanced budget proposal right now.

Why is it so wrong to put a law in place that requires our government to have the same responsibility to spend as much or less as we take in that we as individuals have?

After this how anybody can feel good or defend "their" party is just crazy. Its all about winning elections for these people & they clearly do not give a crap about the general public.I will not vote for any incumbents. It amazes me that these people enter office as middle class & for the most part leave as millionaires. I dont know if we actually deserved the lower rating but lets see how these morons feel that it happened on their watch. I dont know if Obama is the worst prez ever but he is right there. Having 2 of the worst presidents ever back to back , along with all the partisanship has strangled this country.WE need to let these guys rely on the same programs , insurances as the rest of us ... you will see how fast things get fixed. Unfortunately we are so brainwashed by MSNBC & Fox News we just go along with the status quo & blame the opposing party without admitting the party we for whatever reason suck up to is just so freaking perfect.

Lets be fair here...Obama inherited 2 wars..remember the nonsense about Iraq paying for itself with the oil money...as well as the housing crisis...this was nothing like W inheiriting a annual budget surplus and pissing it away.

The facts are this, and the S&P agrees, we cannot simple cut enough from spending to balance the budget, let alone lower the debt. We need to increase revenues, however this needs to be done by overhauling the tax code, not simply by raising rates. During the Reagan presidency, corporations paid roughly 30% of the revenue the IRS took in, now its roughly 10%. This is not a party issue, both sides sell out their constitutes regularly..IE

Repubs won't agree to cut the tax subsidies for the oil companies. This was put on the books when oil was $15 a barrel and it was supposed to help off set exploration costs....well given oil companies have had the most profitable decade ever, think it's time to erase this one.

The Dems have subsidized the mining industry to the point that most of the gold that is mined from federal lands doesn't even bring in a single cent to the treasury. And Sen Reid(Nev) said touching this subsidy is a non starter....ok really..gold is currently around $1740 per troy oz...think they can pay for OUR GOLD THAT THEY MINE !!!

By cutting out the subsides and loop holes for both the corporate side and the personal side, we will boost our income tremendously, but we could actually lower rates while doing this. that coupled with real spending cuts is the only way I see out.

PS I shorted Goldman Sachs , Bank of America and have been long Gold for awhile... Think we should see a real bottom form in the next couple days, so then I can get back in Apple and McDonalds ...

The facts are this, and the S&P agrees, we cannot simple cut enough from spending to balance the budget, let alone lower the debt. We need to increase revenues, however this needs to be done by overhauling the tax code, not simply by raising rates. During the Reagan presidency, corporations paid roughly 30% of the revenue the IRS took in, now its roughly 10%. This is not a party issue, both sides sell out their constitutes regularly..IE

Agreed.

Quote:

Repubs won't agree to cut the tax subsidies for the oil companies. This was put on the books when oil was $15 a barrel and it was supposed to help off set exploration costs....well given oil companies have had the most profitable decade ever, think it's time to erase this one.

Agreed.

Quote:

The Dems have subsidized the mining industry to the point that most of the gold that is mined from federal lands doesn't even bring in a single cent to the treasury. And Sen Reid(Nev) said touching this subsidy is a non starter....ok really..gold is currently around $1740 per troy oz...think they can pay for OUR GOLD THAT THEY MINE !!!

Agreed.

Don't forget ethanol.

Don't forget how a company like GE (bedfellows with Obama) doesn't pay a single penny in taxes despite ridiculous profits.

And don't forget foreign aid.

Quote:

By cutting out the subsides and loop holes for both the corporate side and the personal side, we will boost our income tremendously, but we could actually lower rates while doing this. that coupled with real spending cuts is the only way I see out.

This had to include healthcare, which is the biggest and fastest growing expense this country has.

And I don't think Obamacare addresses skyrocketing costs at all... besides, the individual mandate may be ruled unconstitutional, thereby killing the entire law. And we would have wasted 4 years and have to start over again.

Read this heart breaking article....something needs to change with our healthcare system....not sure how to fix it, but this is embarrassing that this kinda crap happens in our country

I only listed the above 2 subsidies to show both parties do it...trust me there are hundreds more...

And you still seem caught up in the Dem vs Repub thing( like your comment about GE or Iraq..GE has gotten the tax breaks for several years, this did not merely start with Obama, and pulling out of the war, well that needs to be done in a way that we could have saved some face.....think it's easier said then done. Think all can agree that Obama was given the worst starting place of any president in recent history, and no, he hasn't done a good job.....but we got here through years of terrible decisions in DC...that both parties contributed too..

Rich following that logic of the Dems having the power for the first 2 years of this recovery, do you blame the repubs for getting us in this mess...I mean Clinton did leave a budget surplus...cut cap and balance is complete poop. It sounds good, but there was never a real detailed plan that could have been voted on...it's a political tag line.... we need to cut spending....time has come to end the extended jobless benefits....and raise revenue, by the way I mentioned above...there is no way to simply cut spending enough to ever get us out of debt. Wait till inflation hits...wow you think the economy sucks now....will suck for whoever is in office, Dem or Repub...

Rich following that logic of the Dems having the power for the first 2 years of this recovery, do you blame the repubs for getting us in this mess...

Of course Republicans deserve their share of the blame. They controlled the White House and Congress for 6 years. And they abandoned their ideals in the process by putting forth things like No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, not to mention no bid contracts and a poorly executed occupation of Iraq.

However, the biggest driver of deficits today is unemployment. Not the wars, not the tax cuts... but unemployment.

In 2008, the deficit was over $1 trillion (a good portion of that was TARP, but most of that got paid back, however, the Treasury Department under Obama decided to use that for stimulus). The CBO estimated that if unemployment had remained at 5%, the deficit would have been $189 billion. Much more manageable.

The politicians in Washington have failed to create an environment conducive to creating jobs. Create jobs, you create more tax revenue and reduce deficits. But when you pass a massive financial reform act and create a beauracry that hasn't indicated how it is going to hand down regulations (CFPB) and a massive healthcare overhaul that corporations are not sure how it is going to work, and you start talking about tax increases, you create an environment of uncertainty, and businesses lose confidence, hoarde their money and don't hire or invest.

This is why I think we are in the quagmire we're in today.

Quote:

I mean Clinton did leave a budget surplus...

He also signed the bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall act, which probably was the biggest root cause of the Housing Market fiasco. Bringing down the wall that separated commercial banks from investment banks was a bad idea and led to AIG having their fingers in everything, including mortgage backed securities that were given to investors and insured with default insurance. Once those mortgages started to default and AIG had to pay those claims, they almost went under and almost took the entire economy down with them.

Quote:

cut cap and balance is complete poop.

S&P apparently disagrees.

Quote:

Wait till inflation hits

If the federal government hadn't gone crazy with massive bailouts and stimulus, we may have avoided it.

It won't just be inflation, it will be stagflation reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter days.

The real reason we are in this mess is a society we have been living beyond our means. People got easy credit, whether for houses or credit cards and just charged everything up. When housing collapsed the house of cards fell. The big thing about dramatically cutting spending is your going to slow the economy down even more. Shrinking the size of government means thousands of job cuts..ssi benfits and unemployment benefits that money goes into our economy, when you cut that , less money to spend.Its the gov spending that has kept this economy on life support....when that gets cut, and it has to, unemployment will rise and GDP will drop....no way around that...I was a baby in the 70's so I don't remember how bad it was, but this will be worse....we are gonna see inflation rise dramatically coupled with high unemployment...don't forget Reagan basically spent us out of the 70's recession by building the military up against Russia...we are in debt so much we can't spend our way out of it again. Obama's healthcare reform hasn't cost anything yet, it's the drop in actual corporate revenues for our treasury that has contributed heavily to this.....as well as the simply fact we have an aging population and this is weighing heavily on the ssi and medicare systems....there is no simple fix here, this is systemic and it will get much darker before the light.

I agree that Americans living beyond their means is the ultimate root cause.

But that could have all been mitigated if the Community Reinvestment Act had never been passed or if Glass-Steagall had never been repealed.

These actions facilated access to capital for those that did not have the means to repay that capital.

Eliminating the Gold Standard and propping up a reserve bank with no reserves and no money was a bad idea as well. We're using monopoly money to pay for things and can wantonly raise the limit on our imaginary credit card.

We are headed for hard times.

But I believe that if government creates a more certain environment by simplifying things such as the tax code and regulations, then businesses can better understand and plan and see a direction.

That is the key to getting out of this mess. Spending our way out of it isn't.

We should have never gone down that road in the first place, as tempting as it may have been.

Rich I agree with a lot of what your saying. And a revision is needed in the tax code but on the corporate and personal side. The regulatory agencies...hmmmn anytime we deregulate an industry, they screw the pooch and it costs us the taxpayers...the committee that was bi-partisan that came out with the recommendations to solve our budgetary woes should have been followed...with an aging population, you need to raise the age from 65 to 67 for social security..and the fact that as people are getting older they are living longer..we need to change the cost of living increase as well...yes we need to cut defense, but there is so much waste in that budget you don't have to gut our military to do it...ie the fighter jet being built that no branch in the military wants or boeing getting billions to build a 2nd engine for a jet when the military chose io think general dynamics...plus lets be honest we need to stop being in the business of regime change..Iraq, really they didn't attack us , we shouldn't have been there...Afghan..if we went all in at first, with what we put into Iraq, we would have prob been out already.... we can't afford to build other countries while our own crumbles....the stimulus money would have been better served to repair our nation's crumbling infrastructure, not add to entitlements and bail out states...In the old days, if you went to war, if you won you got the spoils....ie you looted the country or took it over and benefited financially from doing so...now..??? It serves no point...If someone attacks us, we hit them back ten times harder then leave....that's the only thing left.....and it's a hell of a lot cheaper !!

When you cut the military budget the military will determine how the cuts are made. They will cut more people because that's the easiest bang for the buck. Being an AF guy, I will tell you that the new fighter you speak of is in dire need. The fleet of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s are fast approaching their maximum airframe time and will have to be retired permanently. That's the part they don't tell you. Yes the 15s, 16s & 18s are good enough for anything we will have to fight, but pretty soon we won't have any of them to fly. This is where the F-22 and F-35 come in. We have to build more fighters, there's no way around that. We've known that for a long time. These are just the next step up.

Half of our deficit if not more can immediately be cut down by enforcing the recommendations of the GAO by cutting the overlapping government spending programs. Initial estimates from the GAO were from 100-200 Billion, but that has blossomed up to 400B come FY12 (thank you Obamacare). Take their report, create a 1000 page bill that cuts all the programs save 1 in each tree and bam, half the problem gone.

As for cut cap and balance... whats wrong with a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget? Is that not what we want? Do we want to balance the budget at all or just make the numbers smaller to save a little face? Please... Dems shot that down because they know it would require serious spending cuts. I will agree with the tea party on this one. And I have no shame doing it. There is no argument that a balanced budget would be bad..

I'm also not a fan of invasions. I've been invading *crap* for 10 years and I'd like a break. Can we just use some nukes next time?

And Ski, the AF brass has said the f-22 will suffice, the F 35 is not needed or wanted by them...the problem is even if we just cut enough to balance the budget, without more revenue how will we pay off our debt ??? We have the baby boomers hitting retirement age...SSI and Medicare costs will go up . That's agreed by everyone, as has health insurance costs...those are tough issues, but we have to deal with them sooner rather then later....hope you read the article I posted on here fromthe sun-sentinel...it was truly heart breaking...we have to do something about it!

i may have misrepresented, I am in favor of more revenue, but we will be fixing whats there first. Then see what has to go and how much we need to bring in. Raising rates is not the answer though. Fixing the code and subsidies is where you start there.

As I said before though, medicare, medicaid and SS will HAVE to be touched. Now find me a politician willing to vote on that...

As for cut cap and balance... whats wrong with a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget? Is that not what we want? Do we want to balance the budget at all or just make the numbers smaller to save a little face? Please... Dems shot that down because they know it would require serious spending cuts. I will agree with the tea party on this one. And I have no shame doing it. There is no argument that a balanced budget would be bad..

I'm strongly for balancing the budget, but an balanced budget amendement is not a good idea at all.

What happens when the economy has a downturn and revenues fall short of projections?What happens when emergencies happen and spending has to be done?

Making deficit spending illegal would severly limit our governments power to improve bad situations. The time when spending is needed the most is when revenue is down (recessions).

The intelligent way to run an economy is to have a reasonably small surplus during good times, so that you can have a cushion to run at a deficit during the bad times. Unfortunately, we don't have an intelligent government and haven't for decades.

We should have a constitutional amendment to require some responsibility and common sense amongst our congresspeople.

It's not the Government's job to improve bad situations. Here is a little excerpt from Article I, Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution which specifically outlines the powers of the congree:

Quote:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I don't see borrow money to buy our way out of a bad situation with cash we don't have.

I don't see borrow money to buy our way out of a bad situation with cash we don't have.

Maybe should look in the right places:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Also, let's forget about the economy for a second. What would happen if we have a balanced budget amendment. We get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Slash spending everywhere. Reform medicare, medicade and social security. The budget gets balanced and taxes=spending. Then the next day China attacks the US. I can just imagine the cries of outrage when whoever is president at the time goes on TV and says: "Sorry America, we don't have the money to defend ourselves and the balanced budget amendment says we cannot borrow money to do it. Oh, and the Tea Party says we cannot raise taxes so we can fight the war. We can either stop all Social Security payments or negotiation with our attackers to cede them Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California."

Also, let's forget about the economy for a second. What would happen if we have a balanced budget amendment. We get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Slash spending everywhere. Reform medicare, medicade and social security. The budget gets balanced and taxes=spending. Then the next day China attacks the US. I can just imagine the cries of outrage when whoever is president at the time goes on TV and says: "Sorry America, we don't have the money to defend ourselves and the balanced budget amendment says we cannot borrow money to do it. Oh, and the Tea Party says we cannot raise taxes so we can fight the war. We can either stop all Social Security payments or negotiation with our attackers to cede them Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California."

What should we do then?

I think you are over-reaching on this. The US will do whatever they have to to fight any attack on our country and the American people will back it up.

I think you are over-reaching on this. The US will do whatever they have to to fight any attack on our country and the American people will back it up.

So what are you suggesting we would do? Raise taxes to pay for the war (a violation of those Tea Party principles which they avoy never to break).... it will only take a month or two to get the money into federal coffers. So maybe we can ask our attackers nicely to leave us alone until we can afford to fight them off.

Or maybe we can just borrow money... in violation of the Constitution. Congress can pass an amendment that says the first amendment was misguided and should no longer apply.

So in other words, it makes no sense to have that as an amendment in the first place. No?

I don't see borrow money to buy our way out of a bad situation with cash we don't have.

Maybe should look in the right places:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Also, let's forget about the economy for a second. What would happen if we have a balanced budget amendment. We get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Slash spending everywhere. Reform medicare, medicade and social security. The budget gets balanced and taxes=spending. Then the next day China attacks the US. I can just imagine the cries of outrage when whoever is president at the time goes on TV and says: "Sorry America, we don't have the money to defend ourselves and the balanced budget amendment says we cannot borrow money to do it. Oh, and the Tea Party says we cannot raise taxes so we can fight the war. We can either stop all Social Security payments or negotiation with our attackers to cede them Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California."